POL00044389
POL00044389
POST OFFICE LTD CONFIDENTIAL: INVESTIGATION,
LEGAL
POLTD/0506/0685
OFFENCE THEFT/FALSE ACCOUNTING
Name: Josephine Hamilton
Rank: Postmaster Identification 1
Code:
Office: South Warnborough Branch Code 092 904
SPOB
Age: GRO! Date of Birth: I GRO _
Service: 2 years 5 Date Service 21/10/2003
months Commenced:
Personnel Printout:
Nat Ins No:
Home Address:
Contract for Services 09/03/06 on the authority of Elaine Ridge, Area
Suspended: Intervention Manager
To be prosecuted by: Royal Mail Group (including Post Office Ltd)
Designated Tony Utting, National Investigation Manager
Prosecution Authority:
Discipline Manager: Nigel Allen, Contracts & Service Manager
Corporate Security Criminal Law Team
This case relates to a £36,644.89 audit deficit identified at South
Warnborough Sub Post Office Branch (SPOB) on Thursday 09 March 2006.
South Warnborough SPOB is in a semi-rural location and the Post Office
forms part of a general stores and coffee shop. It is a non-residential office
POST OFFICE LTD CONFIDENTIAL: INVESTIGATION, LEGAL
POL00044389
POL00044389
POST OFFICE LTD CONFIDENTIAL: INVESTIGATION,
LEGAL
and the Postmistress is Mrs Josephine Hamilton. It is believed that some of
the shop staff also work in the Post Office although at this stage I have not
been able to confirm this.
Ms Rebecca Portch, Retail Cash Management Support contacted South
Warnborough SPOB on Monday 06 March 2006 as the office was showing
high levels of cash holdings. Ms Portch asked Mrs Hamilton to return at least
£25,000 on Wednesday 08 March 2006.
Mr Geoff Hall, Investigation Team Manager informed me that on Monday 06
March 2006, Mrs Hamilton allegedly told Mrs Kam Matharu, National
Federation of Sub Postmasters (NFSP) that there were some problems at the
Post Office. Mrs Matharu informed Mr Colin Woodbridge, Rural Support
Manager of this, who in turn notified the Area Office and Mr Adrian Skinner,
who as Area Performance Manager requested an audit and passed on the
information to Mr Hall.
I have spoken to Mr Woodbridge, who confirmed that Mrs Matharu telephoned
him to advise that there may be a problem at South Warnborough SPOB but
that she did not specify what sort of problem.
Mrs Hamilton went {sro} on Tuesday 07 March 2006, allegedly being signed off
from work for four weeks [ I
In view of the concerns over Post Office funds I attended South Warnborough
SPOB on Thursday 09 March 2006. Also in attendance that day was Mr Alan
Stuart, Branch Auditor and Ms Elaine Ridge, Area Intervention Manager.
Neither Mrs Hamilton nor any of her staff were present within the Post Office
secure area during the completion of the audit.
Ms Ridge had obtained the Post Office keys from Mrs Hamilton at her private
residence. At 08.45, Ms Ridge, Mr Stuart and myself gained access to the
secure area. I was present when Mr Stuart opened the safe and took out the
cash. It was clear that the cash on hand was significantly less than the figure
of £37,360.06 showing on the Horizon system.
Mr Stuart completed a full audit of the cash and stock and identified a deficit of
£36,583.12, which is broken down as follows:
Cash -£35,426.58 only £1,933.48 physically on hand.
Stock -£ 1,159.36
Bureau +£ 2.82
Mr Stuart also identified an additional £61.77 shortage on Horizon, which
couldn’t be accounted for, and thus the figure posted to late accounts was
POST OFFICE LTD CONFIDENTIAL: INVESTIGATION, LEGAL
POL00044389
POL00044389
POST OFFICE LTD CONFIDENTIAL: INVESTIGATION,
LEGAL
£36,644.89, this being the loss to Post Office Ltd.
A copy of the schedule of accounts and Cash On Hand table can be found at
Appendix B.
A copy of Mr Stuart’s report can be found at Appendix C.
Whilst at South Warnborough SPOB I obtained some Horizon printouts and
accounting documentation, including Cash Account Finals and Branch Trading
Statements.
At 10.50 hrs, together with Ms Ridge, I attended Mrs Hamilton’s private
residence GRO ye ‘l
introduced myself to Mrs Hamilton and her mother, showing both of them my
identity card. I was present when Ms Ridge precautionary suspended Mrs
Hamilton’s contract for services.
I explained to Mrs Hamilton that the audit had identified a deficit in the
accounts of at least £30,000, although the figure had yet to be finalised. I
explained that I would like to conduct a voluntary interview with her and
explained her legal rights and Post Office Friend rule. I stated that I was aware
that she had been signed off work i land gave her my details
asking her to contact me to agree a time and venue to conduct the interview.
I explained to Mrs Hamilton that I wasn’t able to discuss anything relating to
the audit deficit until the interview. Mrs Hamilton made no significant statement
at that time. I was at the private residence for ten minutes, leaving with Ms
Ridge at 11.00 hrs. Mrs Hamilton’s mother was present the whole time. A copy
of my notebook entry covering my attendance at the Post Office and private
residence can be found at Appendix B.
No searches were conducted in respect of this investigation.
Later that day, I sent Mrs Hamilton a letter explaining that I wished to conduct
an interview with her and re-iterating her legal rights and Post Office Friend
rule. A copy of that letter can be found at Appendix C.
Having analysed the Horizon printouts and accounting documentation I was
unable to find any evidence of theft or that the cash figures had been
deliberately inflated.
A Horizon Event Log Balancing was obtained for the period 26 January 2006 —
09 march 2006. This generally showed one cash declaration being done each
day and didn’t show any occasions whereby a genuine cash figure would be
declared followed by an inflated figure.
POST OFFICE LTD CONFIDENTIAL: INVESTIGATION, LEGAL
POL00044389
POL00044389
POST OFFICE LTD CONFIDENTIAL: INVESTIGATION,
LEGAL
A number of envelopes containing weekly accounting documentation were
also obtained. Up until around January 2005 it appeared that each day’s cash
holding was manually entered on a sheet of paper. However, for some reason
this appeared to cease after that time, as I have not found any of these sheets
post January 2005. Copies of the manual cash sheets and the corresponding
Horizon declaration slips for Cash Account Period (CAP) 44 (w/e 26/01/05) are
included at Appendix B.
A number of Cash Account Finals and Branch Trading Statements were
obtained. I have completed a schedule detailing the cash on hand figures
between CAP 36 (w/e 01/12/04) and Branch Trading Period (BTP) 11 (period
ending 09/03/06). On this schedule I have included the cash remittances in
and out of the office as well as the declared discrepancy. Please note that I do
not have Cash Account Finals for CAP’s 23 (w/e 31/08/05) or 15 (w/e
06/07/05) and the Branch Trading Statement period 7 (period ending
09/11/05) is incomplete.
From this schedule it can be seen that between CAP 36 (w/e 01/12/04) and
CAP 01 (w/e 30/03/05) the cash on hand remained fairly constant, generally
fluctuating between £15,000 and £18,000. Between CAP 02 (w/e 06/04/05)
and CAP 14 (w/e 29/06/05) it fluctuates between £18,000 and £20,000. From
CAP 16 (w/e 13/07/05) to BTP 10 (period ending 08/02/06) it gradually rises
from £22,000 to £35,000. A copy of this schedule is associated at Appendix
B.
Within the accounting documentation I found some Alliance & Leicester On-
Line Horizon deposit printouts. These deposits are input onto Horizon by
means of a swipe card as opposed to a manual deposit slip. I printed off an
extract of these transactions from the Business Objects Management
Information Database, covering the period 01 February 2006 to 06 March
2006. The deposits were generally made on a daily basis and for amounts in
multiples of fifty pounds. A copy of that extract can be found at Appendix B.
In my experience it was unusual to see regular deposits, all round figures,
although I now believe that these represent genuine deposits, possibly the
shop takings. Having obtained a further extract from Business Objects I could
see that these deposits stopped on 06 March 2006 and resumed under a
different stock unit (SW) on 16 March 2006, continuing on pretty much a daily
basis. A copy of that extract is at Appendix B.
Obviously, Mrs Hamilton hasn't worked in the Post Office since 07 March
2006. I intend to speak to the shop staff at a later stage, which I will come onto
later in this report and will hopefully be able to determine what these deposits
POST OFFICE LTD CONFIDENTIAL: INVESTIGATION, LEGAL
POL00044389
POL00044389
POST OFFICE LTD CONFIDENTIAL: INVESTIGATION,
LEGAL
relate to.
Ms Izzy Hogg, Tanner & Taylor Solicitors, contacted me on 15 March 2006,
advising me that she was representing Mrs Hamilton. Ms Hogg advised me
that at this stage she would only be able to supply me with a prepared
statement from Mrs Hamilton. I explained that with or without a prepared
I would still need to intervi Hamilton or be sent a letter from
{stating that she was not, ~] to be interviewed.
I contacted Ms Hogg on 12 April 2006 to ascertain the current situation, as an
interview had still not been arranged and I had not received any
correspondence stating that Mrs Hamilton was not well enough to be
interviewed. Ms Hogg advised me that her colleague, Ms Kate Taylor was now
dealing with this case. As such I telephoned Ms Taylor and left a message
asking her to contact me. As nobody had contacted by the end of the day I
decided to send another letter to Mrs Hamilton inviting her to attend an
interview and asking for a response by 21 April 2006.
The following day I was contacted by Ms Taylor who stated that she would
arrange a meeting with Mrs Hamilton in order to compile a prepared
statement. Ms Taylor contacted me again on 21 April 2006 and it was agreed
that I would conduct an interview with Mrs Hamilton at 11.00 hrs on 05 May
2006 at Tanner & Taylor Solicitors Office, 149 Victoria Road, Aldershot.
Together with Mr Colin Price, Investigation Manager I attended Tanner &
Taylor Solicitors office at 10.45 hrs on 05 May 2006. We introduced ourselves
to Ms Taylor and gave her disclosure of what I intended putting to Mrs
Hamilton. Prior to the commencement of the interview, Ms Taylor gave me a
copy of a prepared statement, signed by Mrs Hamilton.
The prepared statement stated that Mrs Hamilton began working at South
Warnborough SPOB on 24 December 2001, becoming postmistress in
October 2003.
The prepared statement seems to intimate that she didn’t receive adequate
training at the time and that the manuals were old and out of date. It also
suggests that she didn’t receive any training in respect of other matters.
It also refers to an alleged £1,500 error, which doubled to £3,000 when
attempts were made to correct it and another error of £750. No dates are
supplied in respect of these alleged errors.
It also suggests that ‘The Post Office systems are shambolic and details
alleged problems encountered. It states that all staff use the same Horizon
POST OFFICE LTD CONFIDENTIAL: INVESTIGATION, LEGAL
POL00044389
POL00044389
POST OFFICE LTD CONFIDENTIAL: INVESTIGATION,
LEGAL
user name, again citing lack of training as the reason for this.
Finally, it states ‘Il can say that I have never stolen any money or acted
dishonestly’. A copy of the prepared statement is at Appendix B.
At 12.13 hrs I commenced a tape-recorded interview with Mrs Josephine
Hamilton. Also present was Ms Taylor and Mr Price. The interview was
conducted under caution and in accordance with the Police and Criminal
Evidence Act 1984 Codes of Practice.
The interview comprised of two tapes, reference 042769 and 042770. I have
prepared summaries of these tapes, copies of which can be found at pages 12
to 21 of this file.
From the summaries it can be seen that initially Ms Taylor read out the
prepared statement. Subsequently, Mrs Hamilton gave no comment
responses to all questions put to her by Mr Price and myself. Despite the fact
that no comment responses were given, I have still summarised the tapes in
order that you can see what questions were put to Mrs Hamilton.
It can also be seen that Mrs Hamilton wasn’t prepared to advise me who
worked in the Post Office. I thus advised her that I might have to obtain denial
statements from all staff working in the shop. Ms Taylor advised me that Mrs
Hamilton was prepared to grant access to her bank account details. A number
of Bank Disclosure Authority forms were given to Mrs Hamilton after the
interview concluded.
During the course of the interview I showed Mrs Hamilton the following items:
Branch Trading Statement’s Period’s 10 (13/01/06 - 08/02/06) & 11(08/02/06 —
09/03/06)
Cash Account Final’s CAP’s 36 (w/e 01/12/04), 10 (w/e 01/06/05), 24 (w/e
07/09/05) &
28 (w/e 05/10/05).
Business Objects extract detailing Alliance & Leicester On-Line cash deposits.
Copies of the items shown can be found at Appendix B.
The interview was concluded at 13.32 hours. The Master Tapes are secured
at my office in Eastleigh, whilst the working copies are associated at
Appendix B.
A copy of the CS001 Legal Rights form can be found at Appendix B.
POST OFFICE LTD CONFIDENTIAL: INVESTIGATION, LEGAL
POL00044389
POL00044389
POST OFFICE LTD CONFIDENTIAL: INVESTIGATION,
LEGAL
A copy of the CS003 Post Office Friend form can be found at Appendix C.
Following the interview, I asked Mrs Hamilton a number of questions for the
Typed copies of the NPA 01 and CS033 forms can be found at Appendix C.
I gave Mrs Hamilton a number of Bank Disclosure Authority forms and
explained how to complete them. I gave her one of my business cards and
asked her to post the forms to me once they had been completed.
I entered details of my attendance, the interview conducted and the
completion of the NPA and Antecedents forms in my notebook. A copy of that
entry can be found at Appendix B.
lam unable to state what would appear to be the period of offending, mainly
due to the fact that Mrs Hamilton responded no comment to my questions.
You may wish to consider a charge of theft for the audit deficit of £36,644.89,
covering the period from when Mrs Hamilton became Postmaster (21/10/03) to
the date of the audit (09/03/06).
The only evidence appears to be the fact that the audit identified the money as
explanation, yet refused to answer any questions.
I do not envisage any problems regarding obtaining statements in respect of
this case and at this stage I have no reason to express any concerns over the
reliability of any potential witness. Please advise if you feel that obtaining
denial statements from the shop staff would be appropriate at this stage.
POST OFFICE LTD CONFIDENTIAL: INVESTIGATION, LEGAL
POL00044389
POL00044389
POST OFFICE LTD CONFIDENTIAL: INVESTIGATION,
LEGAL
I requested Horizon data in respect of this case covering the period 09
February 2006 - 08 March 2006. This wasn’t received until after I had
interviewed Mrs Hamilton. I have now had chance to view the data and am
unable to identify anything of an incriminating nature. All entries are against
the user name JHAO001.
In view of the fact that the prepared statement suggested that numerous
problems had occurred at South Warnborough SPOB I requested and
subsequently received details of calls made to both the Network Business
Support Centre (NBSC) and the Horizon Support Helpdesk (HSH). From the
NBSC Log it can be seen that numerous calls were made requesting advice
on a number of subjects. It also details a number of losses reported, details as
follows:
03/12/03 £2,082.00
30/12/03 £2,000.00
02/01/04 £4,188.53
03/02/04 £3,191.00
24/02/05 £ 750.00
05/01/06 £1,000.00
Both The NBSC and HSH Call Logs detail reported problems in respect of the
Horizon kit. Copies of both Call Logs can be found at Appendix C.
I explained to Ms Taylor that the Post Office would be looking to recover the
funds owing from Mrs Hamilton and that any payments would be accepted
without prejudice. To date, no monies have been repaid in respect of this case
and thus the loss to Post Office Ltd remains at £36,644.89.
I am waiting for the completed Bank Authority Disclosure forms to be returned
to me. Other than that and the fact that the entire loss to Post Office Itd of
£36,644.89 is still outstanding there are no further accounting aspects to deal
with. I have advised Mr Mick Matthews, Accredited Financial Investigator of
this case.
Electronic copies of this report and tape summaries have been sent to the
Post Office Ltd Casework Team on 17 May 2006.
During the course of this investigation the following failings were
identified:
1) It was identified that this office had been holding approx £25,000
more that its ONCH target but excessive cash holdings appear to
have gone unnoticed for some time.
POST OFFICE LTD CONFIDENTIAL: INVESTIGATION, LEGAL
POL00044389
POL00044389
POST OFFICE LTD CONFIDENTIAL: INVESTIGATION,
LEGAL
1) In Mrs Hamilton’s prepared statement it states that all staff used
the same Horizon user name.
1) The prepared statement suggests that Mrs Hamilton didn’t comply
with all the training aids sent to her.
All original exhibits in this case are currently retained at my office in Eastleigh.
These papers are now forwarded to you for sight and advice on the sufficiency
of the evidence as to whether criminal charges are brought against Mrs
Hamilton.
Please feel free to contact me should you require any further information or
clarification on any of the points raised in this report.
Graham Brander
Investigation Manager
G RO 17 May 2006
POST OFFICE LTD CONFIDENTIAL: INVESTIGATION, LEGAL